The 9th Amendment states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones enumerated, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated.

How would the 9th Amendment allow the ban of (certain) video games?

Congress would cite the commerce clause as giving them the right to regulate video games in the interest of the general welfare. You know all the specious arguments Chief. The general welfare is more important than a few people's claimed right to watch simulated violence etc. etc.

Unless the idea of enumerated powers is resurrected and it's made clear that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause are not grants of general power, the government will go right on regulating whatever it wants to based on political expedience and how much money can be generated for cronies.

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

SkyChief

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11282
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #31 - Jun 4th, 2018 at 11:05am

Congress would cite the commerce clause as giving them the right to regulate video games in the interest of the general welfare...... the government will go right on regulating whatever it wants to based on political expedience and how much money can be generated for cronies.

I salute your cynicism, sir.

IP Logged

The Opposition

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10811
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #32 - Jun 4th, 2018 at 12:08pm

Congress would cite the commerce clause as giving them the right to regulate video games in the interest of the general welfare. You know all the specious arguments Chief. The general welfare is more important than a few people's claimed right to watch simulated violence etc. etc.

Unless the idea of enumerated powers is resurrected and it's made clear that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause are not grants of general power, the government will go right on regulating whatever it wants to based on political expedience and how much money can be generated for cronies.

Corrupted government makes rational governing for the benefit of the people impossible.

It can only get worse when half of Americans see the other half as their mortal enemies. And Trump thrives on causing the political divide to strengthen the hate.

Enjoy!

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #34 - Jun 4th, 2018 at 3:24pm

Jeff still hasn't said whether it was right or wrong for the people who got lung cancer and claim it's from smoking, before there was a warning label, to collect damages from the cigarette companies.

He claims you can't "prove" smoking caused lung cancer in particular instances since those individuals all might have got lung cancer anyway.

That's true, there is correlation but not a provable connection. Some people smoke for 60 years and never get lung cancer, others get lung cancer when they've never smoked at all. It is true that smoking increases you chance of getting lung cancer, but, being a libertarian, I always think individual responsibility is a very big factor in anything.

It's been know for hundreds of years that smoking was bad for most people's health in many ways, and known since 1964 that there is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

Nicotine is highly addictive, but you can quit and there are ways to do it that don't just involve going cold turkey... But you have to want to quit. (Vaping nicotine would seem to be the easiest way to maintain your addiction while avoiding lung cancer.)

Even if you started smoking before 1964, why did you keep smoking? Why did you start?

If you started smoking after 1964, how did you possibly avoid learning that lung cancer might be the result?

Tobacco companies provide a product that people want. Like many products, it can be dangerous/harmful, especially if used carelessly or to excess.

Should companies that make rock and mountain climbing equipment be held liable if you get hurt or killed climbing rocks?

Individuals are responsible for their choices. I don't accept the "I didn't know cigarettes could be harmful" excuse. Certainly anyone growing up in the 20thCentury saw a family member or older friend coughing and hacking and wheezing from emphysema, or heard of some older person or family member who was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer.

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #35 - Jun 4th, 2018 at 3:28pm

That's true, there is correlation but not a provable connection. Some people smoke for 60 years and never get lung cancer, others get lung cancer when they've never smoked at all. It is true that smoking increases you chance of getting lung cancer, but, being a libertarian, I always think individual responsibility is a very big factor in anything.

It's been know for hundreds of years that smoking was bad for most people's health in many ways, and known since 1964 that there is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

Nicotine is highly addictive, but you can quit and there are ways to do it that don't just involve going cold turkey... But you have to want to quit. (Vaping nicotine would seem to be the easiest way to maintain your addiction while avoiding lung cancer.)

Even if you started smoking before 1964, why did you keep smoking? Why did you start?

If you started smoking after 1964, how did you possibly avoid learning that lung cancer might be the result?

Tobacco companies provide a product that people want. Like many products, it can be dangerous/harmful, especially if used carelessly or to excess.

Should companies that make rock and mountain climbing equipment be held liable if you get hurt or killed climbing rocks?

Individuals are responsible for their choices. I don't accept the "I didn't know cigarettes could be harmful" excuse. Certainly anyone growing up in the 20thCentury saw a family member or older friend coughing and hacking and wheezing from emphysema, or heard of some older person or family member who was a heavy smoker and died of lung cancer.

All that to avoid giving a straight answer.

Before the warning label, or let's say before the very first people who should have known, by whatever standards you have...

Before the warning label, or let's say before the very first people who should have known, by whatever standards you have...

Should the cigarette companies owe damages?

No. Why do you think they should?

People smoked tobacco before tobacco companies existed. Not long after Europeans started importing tobacco, it was noted that it caused health problems.

Tobacco companies were created to fill a demand, which is what they still do.

People make choices.

If you choose to eat two dozen large chocolate chip cookies every day, because you ate a chocolate chip cookie when you were young and really liked it, and you got addicted to the cookies and the sugar and the chocolate, and you became obese and got diabetes because while you were eating all those cookies, you never exercised, should someone "owe you damages"?